Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2262 (PNJ)

Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab

2017-09-26

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2017
JUDGMENT Mr. Jitendra Chauhan.J. (Oral):- The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 28 dated 30.05.2017 registered under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC at Police Station Women, Bathinda. 2. On 19.06.2017 this Court had passed the following order:- “Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the son of the petitioner had third marriage with the complainant who was also earlier married and divorced. It was a simple marriage but due to matrimonial discord, present FIR was got registered implicating the petitioners and entrustment of few gold articles have been attributed to them. Notice of motion for 9.8.2017. In the meanwhile, the petitioners are directed to surrender before the police and join investigation within a week. In the event of their arrest being required, they shall be released on interim bail till the next date, subject to their furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer. However, they shall abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2)(i) to (iv) Cr.P.C. failing which they shall loose the benefit of interim bail allowed to them. “ 3. It is contended that in pursuance of the order dated 19.06.2017, the petitioners have joined the investigation. 4. Learned State counsel, on instructions, states that the petitioners have joined the investigation and they are not required for custodial interrogation. 5. However, learned counsel for the complainant states that recovery of all dowry articles has not been carried out. 6. In Rajesh Sharma and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, [2017(3) Law Herald (P&H) 1886 (SC) : 2017 LawHerald.Org 1139] : Criminal Appeal No.1265 of 2017, decided on 27.07.2017, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has observed that “Recovery of disputed dowry items may not by itself be a ground for denial of bail if maintenance or other rights of wife/minor children can otherwise be protected. Needless to say that in dealing with bail matter, individual roles, prima facie truth of the allegations, requirement of further arrest/custody and interest of justice must be carefully weighed.” 7. There is no material on record to suggest that the maintenance or other rights of the complainant-wife cannot be otherwise protected. Needless to say that in dealing with bail matter, individual roles, prima facie truth of the allegations, requirement of further arrest/custody and interest of justice must be carefully weighed.” 7. There is no material on record to suggest that the maintenance or other rights of the complainant-wife cannot be otherwise protected. Considering the fact that the petitioners have joined the investigation and the challan already stands presented, the order dated 19.06.2017 passed by this Court is made absolute, subject to furnishing of bail-bonds/surety bonds by the petitioners to the satisfaction of the CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned. 8. The petition stands allowed.